Electro-hydraulic shock wave systems have been used to disintegrate kidney and urethral stones by applying focused shock waves to the stone. A few hundred up to a few thousand shock waves may be required to break a stone within a mammal into small pieces of 3-4 mm diameter which are able to pass over a period of several weeks through the urethra and the bladder out of the patient's body.
Devices using electro-hydraulic (U.S. Pat. No. 4,539,989), piezoceramic (U.S. Pat. No. 5,119,801) or electromagnetic (U.S. Pat. No. 5,174,280) shock wave or pressure pulse generating elements have been described.
The patents used herein to illustrate the invention and, in particular, to provide additional details respecting the practice are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
In certain of non-urological applications, shock waves and pressure pulses may be used to treat bone fracture, non-unions, or other orthopedic conditions. The treated indications may be related to tendons, ligaments, soft tissue and include muscle pain and calcification in tissue. Suitable devices and procedures have been described (U.S. Pat. No. 5,545,124 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,595,178).
Known devices generally make use of more or less strong focused shock waves which are focused by ellipsoidal reflectors in electro-hydraulic devices (U.S. Pat. No. 4,539,989) or by parabolic reflectors in devices using electromagnetic sources which are emitting waves from a cylindrical surface (U.S. Pat. No. 5,174,280). Other electromagnetic sources may make use of acoustic lenses of different shapes, for example, concave or convex, depending on the sound velocity and density of the lens material used (U.S. Pat. No. 5,419,335 and European Patent 1 445 758 A2). Piezoelectric sources often use spherical surfaces to emit acoustic pressure waves which are self focused to the center of the sphere (U.S. Pat. No. 5,222,484). The same type of focusing has been used in spherical electromagnetic devices (U.S. Pat. No. 4,807,627).
Since 1971 extracorporeal shock wave therapy (hereinafter ESWT) has been used successfully and with a low rate of adverse reactions in the field of urology. Despite the relatively high energy flow densities used during ESWT, no major complications (e.g. malignant degeneration of the treated tissue) have been reported.
The German urologist G. Haupt deserves the credit for the acceptance ESWT has gained in the fields of orthopaedics and traumatology as well. Urologists have noticed, that larger amounts of energy (i.e. a larger number of pulses) were required to disintegrate calculi in the urethra and bladder than to break down renal calculi. Initially neither the physicists nor the medical scientists involved in these studies had a plausible explanation for this discrepancy. It was while reviewing follow-up x-rays to detect any recurrences of calculi in patients treated for urethral or bladder stones in 1986 that Haupt first noted a thickening of the ala of the ileum, an anatomical structure lying directly in the path of the shock waves aimed at the calculi. This finding was significant since it indicated that a) bone absorbs shock waves and b) shock waves evidently also trigger biological reactions in bone. Haupt subsequently demonstrated the osteoinductive effect of focused shock waves in animal experiments.
Since it is mainly the physical properties of shock waves that play a central role in the use of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for urological applications, basic research on the use of shock waves for orthopedic and traumatological applications also focused primarily on these dynamic mechanical force related type properties.
This mechanistic model attempts to explain the effect of shock waves in tissue by postulating that the shock wave creates micro lesions in the tissue on which it is concentrated without, however, destroying the surrounding soft-tissue and thus triggers repair processes leading to healing.
This model of action was the reason, moreover, that Schaden et al used high numbers of pulses (i.e. up to 12,000 for treatment of the long bones) when employing shock waves for the first time to treat patients with pseudoarthrosis. Several of these treatments had to be terminated after only 3,000 to 4,000 pulses for technical reasons, however, it was noted that the treatment resulted in healing of the patients pseudoarthrosis despite (or perhaps because of) this circumstance. This observation was congruent with the results of the basic research carried out by M. Maier, who demonstrated that the optimal osteoinductive effect of shock waves on rat femora took place at energy flow densities and pulse numbers which caused practically no histological demonstrable tissue destruction. One consequence of this finding was that basic research on shock waves concentrated increasingly on the biological effects of shock waves.
C. J. Wang discovered that a variety of substances displaying high biological activity are released during and after the application of shock waves to tissue. The production of nitric oxygen (NO), vessel endothelial growth factor (VEGF), bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), and other growth factors have been demonstrated. Furthermore, Maier discovered a decline in the number of small-myelinized neurons after shock wave therapy, an observation that could explain the analgesic effect of shock wave therapy. As a consequence of these findings, the mechanistic model was increasingly relegated to a secondary role and supplanted by a microbiological model explaining the action of shock waves.
In practice the use of ESWT has been a results oriented science wherein a clear and accurate understanding of the actual healing process was neither understood nor fully appreciated. As a result a variety of treatments and uses of ESWT in mammals had heretofore never been tried or attempted or if tried, the outcomes were at best mixed.
A primary factor in the reluctance to use ESWT was that the believed threshold energy requirements were so high that the surrounding tissue would hemorrhage, exhibited by hematomas and bleeding around the treated site. This phenomenon is particularly known in the area of focused emitted waves designed for deep penetration into the patient. US patent publication 2005/0010140 recites the disadvantageous effects of cavitation phenomena can be controlled wherein the shock wave source is connected to a control means which controls the release frequency of shock waves as a function of pulse energy in such a manner that higher pulse energy correlates with lower release frequencies of the shock waves and vice versa. The avoidance of cavitation occurrences would it is postulated result in far less pain for the patient.
Up to the present, shock wave units focused acoustical energy on one point or focal point hence the name focused shock waves. More recent patents DE10065450 or DE registered no. 102205017724-22 respectively publications as Eisenmenger UMB 2002, 28369-774 have described shock wave units with a larger therapy volume. In particular these new units can provide effective wave transmission over volumes far greater than a focal point. In fact the volumetric region of effective wave energy transmission can be considerably larger and the projected profile of this therapeutic volume can be established to a reasonable degree of certainty.
In today's clinical routine, all positioning and real time monitoring systems connected to shock wave units are based on a targeting on one point, which represents the point of highest energy.
The clinician is requested to position the volume to be treated (for example the stone) onto this point. To do so, expensive technology by means of a maneuverable patient table or shock wave unit must be utilized.
Amongst experts it is well accepted, that the marked focal point represents not necessarily the point of the maximal energy. The reasons are that this theoretical point is only established by measurements in water. It is considered the best possible approximation, because the propagation of the shock waves through the human body is conjugated by the changing tissues as skin, muscle, fat, etc.
Further aging processes of some types of shock wave units as well as the selected energy level always causes a shift of the point of highest energy from a predicted theoretical point. The shift caused by a burning of the electrode means the theoretical point is constantly shifting after repeated transmission pulses. Those described systematic deviations are being enlarged by any controlled or uncontrolled movements of the patients, e.g. respiration.
For the application of new shock wave units with larger therapy volume as described above, a positioning device on one point becomes practically useless and even in the old focal point shock wave units the emitted energy profile created a gradient form of therapeutic energy that could be very useful to the clinician treating a bone fracture wherein the control of the emitted energy profile is represented in a therapeutic volume which is invaluable in shock wave treatments.